The whole damn world

Wednesday, 14 February 2018

I've blogged a couple of times about an event that occurred last October.

One of my pupils was on her driving test. She was traveling along a road that split into two lanes before joining a roundabout. On every previous test I've observed, the examiner has given some kind of instruction to use the right hand lane at or before this divergence occurred, but this time, this did not happen. My pupil, having put herself in the correct lane anyway, asked for reassurance/clarification, and the examiners response was to ask if she had ever driven through the tunnel on a driving lesson. His tone was surprisingly aggressive. It seemed to me that he'd been caught napping, and had reacted defensively instead of 'fessing up and apologising and giving confirmation and reassurance that she had chosen correctly.

I appealed on the grounds that the examiner had failed to provide clear direction in good time.

There followed a protracted shenanigans because my pupil had given slightly incorrect personal details. It took a long time, and a lot of my time and attention to sort this out, but eventually, this was sorted out, and the DVSA investigated my complaint.

They found against me, after investigating the situation, an investigation that at no point involved speaking to my pupil. They just took the examiner's word for it, and because the examiner had given correct instructions at the roundabout, and because he had correctly marked her driving.

I sent my appeal up a level, because what I was complaining about was not the marking of the test, or the instruction given at the roundabout, but the lack of instruction given on approach to the roundabout.

This appeal too was rejected, on pretty much the same basis. No contact was made with my pupil. No reference was made to the point where the instruction should have been given. The DVSA instead concentrated on the (correct) instruction given at the roundabout.

At some point in all this, I'd also realised that if she was in a right hand only lane, without being asked to be there, she should have had some kind of fault marked against her in regards to response to road signs and road markings, or possibly planning and awareness, but that no fault had been marked.

I appealed again, this time to the third and highest level. This involves senior executive staff at the highest level of the DVSA. Their response was the first to actually address the point at which my appeal was based, rather than at the roundabout, several hundred yards further ahead. My appeal was still rejected, and my pupil had still not been contacted for her side of the story.

I thought this was the end of the line.

Since I'd sat there and watched as something completely anomalous happened, I was resigned, but pretty disillusioned. Then I re-read the appeals procedure details, and I noticed something I'd forgotten. If after taking my appeal to the highest level, I was still unhappy, I could ask for my complaint to be submitted for independent assessment by an independent assessor.

He contacted me asking me to get my pupil to contact him, and I passed his request on but received no response. My pupil is not the most socially confident of people. I emailed back, explaining that for whatever reason, my pupil chose not to respond to my message. He then contacted me again, with a google map of the precise area this incident covered, and I was able to annotate the map, with a detailed description of events as I saw them.

This was acknowledged, along with an estimate of the timescale before a decision would be reached.

Today, this decision was emailed to me. The bold stuff is serious. It carries weight and expects to be acted upon.

It's a long document, but here are the findings:

My view

Turning first to the DVSA’s
handling of your case, I agree that it took too long (eight working
days) to query Jess’ details, particularly given the target to
reply substantively within ten working days. In this time you
seemingly had to chase to get the case moving. I also agree that the
DVSA’s communications about this were confusing. I recommend
that the DVSA reviews its practices and considers whether its
customer service could be improved by an earlier check on new
complaint correspondence to ensure that all the necessary
information is available. This initial poor service, and the
confusing claim that you had been asked for the correct details
sooner, was an inauspicious start.

You provided the correct details
on 20 October and the complaint was referred to the driving test
centre for investigation four working days later, deadlined for 31
October. This seems a long time to me but I must commend the local
driving test manager for the clear priority he afforded to the case,
returning comments based on a review of the documentation and
conversation with the examiner the following day. I will consider
the depth of the DVSA’s investigations shortly.

These intervals appear reasonable
to me given the fact that further comments were obtained at every
stage. The ICA referral was also timely.

I have commented in the previous
section that the DVSA’s responses were unconvincing. Neither of
the November emails placed the examiner’s question to Jess in
context. The impression given was that Jess’ query followed
a timely instruction to turn right at the roundabout. Having looked
carefully at your correspondence and submission to me, and the
DVSA’s evidence, my view is that your account of the sequence of
events is more plausible. In particular, I cannot see why a
candidate already in the correct lane on the basis of an examiner’s
instruction would then in effect ask whether she should embark on a
different route. I therefore consider it more likely than not that
the examiner’s directional instruction followed Jess’ enquiry.

You have argued throughout your
correspondence that the timing of the instruction represented a
failure to abide by 1.27. Looking at the map in paragraph 1 along
with the road views I reproduce in subsequent paragraphs I note
that:

It is clear that the sign
immediately south of Willow Close (paragraph 4) indicates that the
A5027 will branch off into a right lane; it is therefore arguable
that a broad instruction to follow the road ahead at all times would
require the driver to branch right as the road split (and that a
1.06 infringement by Jess in following the road ahead in the right
lane might have been unfair)

It is also noteworthy that the
roundabout itself is atypical in that Gorsey Lane traffic has right
of way over traffic already on the roundabout

I also note that the standard
Highway Code advice is to stay in the left-hand lane on a dual
carriageway unless overtaking or turning right [137]

However, the Highway Code also
states: “You should follow the signs and road markings and get
into the lane as directed.” [134] Arguably again, following
the signs to remain on the same route in this instance would involve
right lane selection.

Taking all these factors into
account, I think that this was an atypical scenario for a learner
driver in a test to second-guess and that clear and timely
instructions from the examiner were required. This drive is clearly
part of an established test route, and the likelihood of the tunnel
exit featuring in a test is low, but that does not obviate the
examiner’s duty under 1.27 to be clear. You argue convincingly
that other examiners do not allow doubt about the required exit from
the roundabout and provide timely direction. On balance I think it
more likely than not that the instruction to turn right arrived late
on 6 October 2017 to the extent that the examiner’s compliance
with section 1.27 is in doubt.

You also complained about the tone
in which the examiner’s query to Jess was delivered. Obviously I
was not present and cannot provide an adjudication based on
first-hand observation. A clear opportunity to investigate this
aspect of the complaint properly was missed at each of the DVSA’s
three stages. The agency focused solely on the examiner’s
intention. I don’t think anyone thought that his intention was to
belittle Jess or to undermine her performance. But I think that it
would have represented good customer service, and investigatory
practice, to have telephoned Jess to hear her account of the drive
and to understand the impact on her of the examiner.

The new test date was on the
horizon and a call would have also reinforced the agency’s aim to
ensure that avoidable stress was removed from the process. I
understand that a different examiner could not be guaranteed under
the DVSA’s rules. But I’m sure that a sympathetic discussion of
the October drive would have been appreciated by the candidate and
would have represented the high level of customer care that the DVSA
aims to provide.1

The record of the test did not
copy well within the scanned documents referred to me but I also
think it likely that the deterioration in Jess’ performance after
the Gorsey Lane roundabout would have been discernible from the test
record within the local investigation of the complaint. Rather than
triangulating the evidence base by looking at this and talking to
Jess, the same managerial assurances were trotted out in the first
two DVSA responses. This was disappointing given the very serious
complaint that examiner conduct had undermined a candidate’s
performance.

The
third response did engage more directly with your arguments about
lane selection but did not appear to take on board the possibility
that Jess was in the right-hand lane because she had assumed that
the tunnel exit would not be part of the test. This seems to me a
likely scenario, particularly if parked cars in the run up to the
creation of two lanes had already led her to select the right-hand
lane. The DVSA’s first suggestion, that Jess may have been
schooled on the route, does not to my mind give sufficient weight to
the fact that she asked for directions. And I remain of the view
that a call to the candidate at this stage would have clarified the
impact on her of the examiner’s approach even if the DVSA remained
of the view that his intervention had been acceptable.

Concluding, I uphold your
complaint that the examiner’s conduct of the test fell below an
acceptable standard. I think that this represented unfairness to
Jess that could and should have been addressed fully during the
complaints process. Unfortunately I found the DVSA’s assurances
complacent and unconvincing. However, I do not feel that the
evidence I have reaches a sufficient threshold for me to conclude
that Jess would have passed the test had the examiner’s conduct
and performance been better. I therefore partially uphold the
complaint and recommend that the agency apologises to Jess
for the failings I’ve highlighted and makes her a consolatory
payment of £65.

This
concludes my involvement in your case. In the event that you remain
dissatisfied it is open to you to ask an MP to refer your complaint
to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Mr Rob Behrens.
His telephone helpline is 0345 015 4033.

Monday, 12 February 2018

From the fragments I remember, I was in some kind of school hall, with a lot of children, and I was playing them a song. The song had a tune, and melody, and lyrics. I awoke to find that I remembered the music quite clearly, but that I'd forgotten everything except the vaguest sense of the words.

I've recorded it. It's both the quintessence of every melodic cliché ever, and as catchy as anything.

Wednesday, 10 January 2018

Ah. My lovely shiny new bit of musical whizz-bangery has a built in effects unit that when applied to my vocals, turns my rather reedy and weak voice into a thing of beauty. In my humble opinion. I normally hate hearing it, but I'm hitting all the right notes (except the very highest one) and there's sweetness, sustain and power in there. This is just a fragment of "With or without you"

Tuesday, 2 January 2018

I want to stay off the booze this year. I've managed it so far. I celebrated the completion of our solar orbit with a glass of fizzy fruit drink.

I also want to do more musically. I got in touch with someone I used to know, and he's just got back to me. Full of enthusiasm as ever. Wants to get me gigging with his band. I feel that I'd rather just go have a jam with him just to see how things go at first. He sent me a set list. Mainly pretty safe, mainstream stuff. If I do go on to do something with this, I'd want to add quite a few new things that they might not have thought of doing.

Anyway, just as a note to myself, here are some useful settings for the multi effects unit...

1-1-1 deep long echo
1-1-2 loud and distorted
1-1-4 slightly different deel long echo with a bit of phase
3-2-4 reverby fast echo that might be good for vocals.

The settings are in three groups of 4. In theory, there are 64 presets. In practice, since some of the buttons and pedals on this old unit don't work except through diligent and forceful application, there are fewer available. I will try to list them all here if I can be bothered.